Serial No. 10/757,688
-8-
RE MARKS
Applicants have amended claims 1 , 9, and 1 8. No new matter has been added by
way of these amendments. In view of the above amendments and the following remarks,
reconsideration of the outstanding office action is respectfully requested.
The Office has rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-29 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,438,657 to
Nakatani (Nakatani), in view of US Patent No. 7,197,702 to Niyogi et al. (Niyogi), and
further view of US Patent No. 7,272,258 to Berkner et al. (Berkner), claims 3, 12, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatani in view of Niyogi in view of US Patent
(Berkner), and further in view of US Patent No. 6,778,703 to Zlotnick (Zlotnick), and Claims 8,
17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatani in view of Niyogi in view
of Berkner and further in view of US Patent No. 6,519,617 Wanderski et al. (Wanderski).
Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, and Wanderski, alone or in combination, do
not disclose or suggest, "an identification system configured to identify a designated output
system. . . wherein the mutation system determines which of the one or more mutators to apply
based on one or more characteristics of the designated output system" as recited in claim 1, "an
identification system configured to identify a designated output system ... wherein the applying
further comprises determines which of the one or more mutators to apply based on one or more
characteristics of the designated output system" as recited in claim 9, or "identifying a
designated output system ... wherein the applying further comprises determines which of the one
or more mutators to apply based on one or more characteristics of the designated output system"
as recited in claim 18.
The Office has asserted "Nakatani and Niyogi et al. does not expressly teach
to form a mutated portion in the original document, wherein the mutation system determines
which of the one or more mutators to apply based on one or more characteristics of the
designated output system. However, the Office asserts Berkner teaches ... to form a mutated
portion in the original document, wherein the mutation system determines which of the one
or more mutators to apply based on one or more characteristics of the designated output
system whereas one or more mutators/reflow operations are applied based upon output
display constraints."
8010167 1.DOC
Serial No. 10/757,688
-9-
Contrary to the Office's assertion Berkner teaches the reflow of text operations
are performed with respect to the size of the constrained output display representation.
which is the height and width of a canvas or target size of a document, not the characteristics
of the designated output system, e.g., a printer as recited in claims 1, 9, and 18. Byway of
example only, the Office's attention is directed to column 5, lines 54-67, and column 6, lines
1-3 of Berkner which states:
"In one embodiment, formatter 112 comprises a scale selector
1 12A to select the scale for each text zone, a reflow
computation unit 1 12B to perform reflow on the text zones ,
and a layout unit 1 12C to generate the layout of the
constrained display document representation or constrained
display output image. Reflow of text is well-known. For
example, see U.S. Pat. No. 6,043,802, entitled "Resolution
Reduction Technique For Displaying Documents on a
Monitor," issued to Gormish, et al. discloses reflow of text in
scanned documents for display on a monitor. These reflow
operations performed by formatter 1 12 are all performed in
response to receiving the display constraints 120 with respect
to the size of the constrained output display representation,
such as, for example, height and width. These constraints
may also be called a canvas size or target image size. "
(emphasis added)
Furthermore, the term "representation" disclosed throughout Berkner is used
in regards to a representation of the original scanned document, e.g., another form of the
original document. Thus, the constrained output display representation in Berkner is not
equivalent or analogous to an output system, e.g.. a printer as recited in claims 1, 9, and 18.
Byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to Claims 2, 18, and 22 of Berkner
which states:
"wherein the image comprises a representation of the scanned
document at a target size smaller than that of the document"
Additionally, byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to
column 5, lines 11-14, of Berkner which states:
"A technique is described that uses layout analysis information
given by performing document analysis to reformat a scanned
document image into a constrained display document
representation. " (emphasis added)
8010167 1JX5C
Serial No. 10/757,688
- 10-
In sharp contrast, the present invention determines which of the mutators to use
based on the characteristics of the output device on which the original document is going to be
displayed, e.g, a printer. Byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to paragraph
[0025], lines 17-26 of the above-identified patent application:
"[0025] In step 110, the document processing system 12 determines
which of the one or more mutators obtained from the identified,
stored document to use on the selected portion of the original
document. The document processing system 12 determines which of
the mutators to use based on the characteristics of the device on
which the original document is going to be displayed and based on
one or more elements of the original document, although other
manners for determining which of the mutators to select can be used.
For example, if the printer 14 selected for the printing job is a black
and-white printer, then a mutator for altering color obtained from the
identified, stored document is irrelevant and would not used by the
document processing system 12."
Accordingly, neither Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, nor Wanderski, alone
or in combination, teach or suggest determining which of the one or more stored mutators to
apply based on one or more characteristics of the designated output system, as recited in
claims 1, 9, and 18.
Additionally, Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, and Wanderski, alone or in
combination, do not disclose or suggest, "a mutation system . . . having obtained one or more
mutators from a list of stored mutators which correspond to particular types of documents,
wherein the mutation system determines which of the one or more mutators to apply based on
. . . the type of document that matches the portion of the original document." as now recited
in claim I, and "having obtained one or more mutators from a list of stored mutators which
correspond to particular types of documents, wherein the applying further comprises
determines which of the one or more stored mutators to apply based on . . . system and the
type of document that matches the portion of the original document." as now recited in claim
9, and "having obtained one or more mutators from a list of stored mutators which
correspond to particular types of documents, wherein the applying further comprises
determines which of the one or more stored mutators to apply based on . . . system and the
type of document that matches the portion of the original document." as now recited in claim
18.
8010167 1.DOC
Serial No. 10/757,688
- 11 -
Byway of example only, the Office's attention is directed to paragraph [0025] of
the above-identified patent application:
[0025] In step 110, the document processing system 12 determines
which of the one or more mutators obtained from the identified,
stored document to use on the selected portion of the original
document. The document processing system 12 determines which of
the mutators to use based on the characteristics of the device on
which the original document is going to be displayed and based on
one or more elements of the original document, although other
manners for determining which of the mutators to select can be used.
For example, if the printer 14 selected for the printing job is a black-
and-white printer, then a mutator for altering color obtained from the
identified, stored document is irrelevant and would not used by the
document processing system 12. In another example, the document
processing system 12 could have lists of mutators stored in memory
20 which are associated with particular types of documents, such as
for text documents, documents with text and images, and documents
with images, and then the document processing system 12 would
determine to use the obtained mutators that were on appropriate stored
list for the type of document that matches the portion of the original
document or the original document. (Emphasis added)
Accordingly, the present invention selects a mutator from a list of stored mutators and
then applies the mutator based upon the particular types of documents that matches the portion of
the original document. Neither Nakatani, Berkner, Zlotnick, Niyogi, nor Wanderski, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, the Office is
respectfully requested to reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 18. Since
claims 2-8 and 27 depend from and contain the limitations of claim 1, claims 10-17 and 28 depend
from and contain the limitations of claim 9, and claims 19-26 and 29 depend from and contain the
limitations of claim 18, they are distinguishable over the cited references and patentable in the
same manner as claims 1, 9, and 18.
8010167 1.DOC
Serial No. 10/757,688
- 12-
In view of all of the foregoing, Applicants submit that this case is in condition
for allowance and such allowance is earnestly solicited.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: May 6. 2011 /Gerald F. Gibbs. Jr./
Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr.
Registration No. 64,715
LECLAIRRYAN
290 Linden Oaks
Suite 310
Rochester, New York 14625
Telephone: (585)270-2117
Facsimile: (585)270-2179
8010167 1.DOC